Traders at the New York Stock Exchange watch the monitors showing Apple shares tumbling this week. The stock fell on reports that the tech company ordered fewer iPhone screens.

Photo: Scott Eells, Bloomberg

Traders at the New York Stock Exchange watch the monitors showing...

Image 2 of 2

NEW YORK, NY - JANUARY 14: Mobile phones sit on display in the window of a store on January 14, 2013 in New York City. Responding to weaker than expected demand, Apple has cut orders for LCD screens and other parts for the iPhone 5 this quarter. Shares for the tech company fell more than 4 percent to $498.20 before the bell on Monday. Analysts see the slowing sales as evidence that the U.S. firm is losing ground to Asian smartphone rivals. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

On Monday, the latest news rumor was that Apple has slashed orders for iPhone 5 components, signaling that "sales of the new iPhone haven't been as strong as previously anticipated and demand may be waning," the Wall Street Journal reported. In fact, the Cupertino tech giant ordered roughly half as many phone screens as it had planned, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with the situation.

The predictable media pile-on ensued and Apple's stock drifted down 3.6 percent on the news. But publications quickly shot some holes in the report, conforming to the tech media template for Apple coverage.

The Journal story had followed, and initially included figures from, an article in Japan's Nikkei also saying orders had been cut in half. But it specified that Apple originally planned to procure about 65 million iPhone 5 screens during the January-to-March quarter.

Tech blog BGR pointed out that, even if that figure included iPod Touch screens, it would be an awfully big number, considering Apple only sold an estimated 52 million iPhones of all types during the hot holiday quarter.

"In what world did Apple expect to order components for 65 million iPhone 5 handsets in the seasonally soft March quarter?" it wrote.

Forbes also ripped into the Journal report and Nikkei's numbers.

Better sense

More cold water was splashed on the original stories Tuesday, as several analysts said the decline in component orders reflected not weakening demand, but improved manufacturing yields. That could mean that as production ramped up, Apple got a better sense of exactly how many components it really needed, or that more products passed inspection.

The rebuttals weren't enough to arrest the stock decline, however, as shares fell another 3.2 percent to $485.92. It was the first time Apple had closed below $500 in months.

Additional clarity on the topic could come Jan. 23, when Apple is set to reveal what's turning into a critical fourth-quarter announcement.

"One way or the other, there's going to be a lot of crow to be eaten ... when Apple releases their holiday quarter results," wrote prominent Apple blogger John Gruber.

Competing assessments

But now it's difficult to know what to make of the competing assessments, an all-too familiar feeling when it comes to Apple coverage.

This week it's screen orders. But last week it was whether Apple was or wasn't planning a cheaper version of the iPhone (or something in between). That debate, by the way, was just an updated version of the arguments over whether Apple was planning a smaller, cheaper iPhone back in 2011.

At the beginning of the month, we got competing stories over whether Apple was or wasn't buying mapping app Waze.

I'm reminded of the old saying about advertising: Half the money spent is wasted, you just can't know which half.

Some of these stories were spot-on accurate, the result of dogged reporting and analysis. Unfortunately, it's increasingly hard to know which half, at least at first.

Part of what we're witnessing is the messy but ultimately constructive back and forth that occurs in the media, as journalists float arguments and counterarguments that eventually help us all arrive at something like the truth.

More provocative

But too much of it reflects less noble traits in the tech press: A readiness to report rumors on flimsy sourcing, and throw up headlines that are more provocative than true. An eagerness to slam or contradict your competitors, even if you haven't bothered with a similar level of legwork. And a self-reinforcing obsession with a single company that keeps an endless gossip cycle spinning, no matter how trivial or apocryphal the subject du jour.

Add it up and it means two things: a whole lot of page views and a big disservice to readers.